In article , ARBermudez3{at}yahoo.com
says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> >1739 is not Byzantine either, but it is hardly pure and also does
>not
>> >fit into a specific type.
>>
>> Again, so WHAT? If we _had_ the autographs, they would not fit into a
>specific
>> type, either.
>
>Are you sure?  Can you prove that?

Yes. Read the section on text-types in almost any introduction to New Testament
Textual Criticism, such as Amphoux or Metzger.

In particular, as I _already_ pointed out to you, Amphoux points out that ALL
the surviving text-types are recensional. Now if you understood textual
criticism, you would understand that just by being 'recensional', they are
guaranteed to be significantly different from the autographs. This is WHY
Amphoux called for more study of the 'Western' text, with its 'split' between
recensional and pre-recensional readings.

>> >Again, Jerome went with the best text available - available being
>key.
>>
>> No, this isn't true either. And how _could_ you know that it is true,
>anyway? He
>> never did tell us which manuscripts he used, nor have scholars been
>able to
>> reconstruct his Vorlage.
>>
>> So you must be talking through your hat, making things up out of the
>whole
>> cloth.
>>
>
>He may or may not have used the greatest manuscripts in existence, but
>used the best he could find.

Yes. But this is what you _refused_ to admit earlier.

>We can be fairly certain of the quality
>of the manuscripts based on the results of his work.

The only thing we can be "fairly certain" of concerning the
quality of those
manuscripts is that they were not much different from the Alexandrian and
Byzantine manuscripts (and their mixtures) we see from the 4th - 6th centuries.
They were NOT spectacular in quality.

>> >Sinaiticus was in existence at the
>> >time of Trent, but it was neither used nor available.
>>
>> What _are_ you talking about? It was not available to _Rome_. That is
>not the
>> same thing. If Rome had not arrogantly insisted that the Greeks were
>schismatics
>> and heretics, Sinaiticus and _many_ other manuscripts might have been
>made
>> available to them. But as it was...
>>
>You have yet to show where anyone anywhere was using Sinaiticus for
>anything except lighting fires.

This is irrelevant.

>> >You have yet to produce viable alternative to the vulgate.
>>
>> Not true. I gave two alternatives. So what if neither of them were
>complete? By
>> following their example, it would have been possible to construct a
>text MUCH
>> closer to the autographs than the Vulgate. But no one (among the
>Latins) was
>> interested in doing this, so it didn't happen.
>>
>Apparently no one else has been interested in doing this since it
>simply hasn't happened.

You don't know that it hasn't happened. Why, most NT textual critics believe
that UBS is _much_ closer to the autographs than the Vulgate ever was.

>> >The fact remains that you still cannot point to a text available at
>the
>> >time that was superior to the Vulgate because in practicality no
>other
>> >textual tradition was using such texts.
>>
>> No, no such 'fact' remains. 1739 and Koridethi were _both_ superior,
>despite
>> their missing books. Put those together with a few similar
>manuscripts and even
>> in the time of Trent, it would have been possible to construct
>something very
>> similar to today's UBS, maybe better. But it never happened, because
>Rome could
>> not be persuaded to take the Greek seriously: the Pope's delay of the
>> Complutensian Polyglot proves this also.
>
>You are very much mistaken since no one else --then or now --has taken
>these manuscripts seriously enough to make much use of them.

This isn't true. Many textual critics take these manuscripts very seriously.

>Maybe you
>can take the world by storm by producing this document yourself and
>demonstrating it's similarity - or even superiority - to the
>UBS/NA text.
>
>I do not have to judge your statements any further.  History, textual
>criticism, and Bible scholarship in general have already provided their
>unfavorable verdicts.

On the Vulgate, yes. So why are you still claiming that Jerome used such
magically wonderful manuscripts, and that the Council of Trent made such a
wonderfully accurate decision when they decided to BAN all other texts?

And no, it is simply NOT TRUE that "History, textual
criticism, and Bible scholarship in general have already provided their
unfavorable verdicts" on Sinaiticus or 1739. You are misremembering what you
read badly.

>Our discussion turns on one question which I have asked repeatedly and
>for which you still have not given a solid answer that a reputable
>scholar would take seriously.
>
>You keep making the excuse that my question is based on a faulty
>assumption,

And it is.

>but this fact remains; the Vulgate became "King of the
>Hill," so to speak.

But it became "King of the Hill" only because of cheating. Do you
always reward
cheaters this way?

>Anyone seeking to challenge the status quo must be
>able to knock the king off the hill.

NO. That is completely false. That falsehood comes from your typically Latin
assumption that truth is decided by contest, like a medievel jousting tournament
or line a courtroom battle between lawyers.

>Can you point to a viable alternative to the Vulgate?  No.

Actually, that is FALSE. The "viable alternative" is NOT to
proclaim some other
text superior, but to admit the truth about the transmission of texts before
printing, and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of ALL the text-types for
what they are. But this is what you presumptuously refuse to do.


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/19/05 9:24:44 AM ---